It has a 4 core CPU and a 4 core GPU,my galaxy can multi task and has a homing bird which is a single core CPU and the same amount of Ram the Vita has,less the video ram. Why would developers want to preload other levels using system ram.?Because after you fill vram thats most of any game, games aren't exactly massvie system ram hogs and for the most part there is going to be a lot of fluff to make it so it won't have to access the disc/drive as much, look at the HD twins they barely handle 512mbs of data at a glorious 30fps, now lets cut the game assets and half and give it an extra 256mb of system ram? Wait you have plenty of left over from shrinking all the assets... The ARM9 isn't even about horsepower its power effiecientcy so its closer to using like 4 pentium 2's... and the graphics card is a PowerVr type 4 core. Again these aren't blazing fast components that will really be able to use tons of ram effectively.
Actually after playing Halo,gears and COD i can actually say that 2 of the 3 had problems running,lag,host advantage issues,game drops do to host leaving,is not xbox live is the developers,sadly integration doesn't solve the problems games have,Halo Reach was a clean and great experience,Gears 1 and 2 were not,so hasn't been COD,cheaters,lag XBL doesn't fix those with integration,so you have a service that works just as well as developers implement it.
it is a better system, COD works better on LIVE and p2p systems generally work better on live and are more consistent across games. Host advantage is really only slight in most cases if the matchmaking is doing its job, which it generally is. I very rarely have any problems with playing on live.
PSN is the same but is free,and like live some games run great other don't,but is free. In fact host migrations happen on P2P games,something sony games had just begin to implement,since most games that are first party on PS3 run on servers,never saw any migration on Warhawk,and is a huge game. MIgration on COD is horrible in both PS3 and xbox live,integration or party chat doesn't fix it.
PSN is not the same, and doesn't hold up as well in the long run even with a ps3/PC I'll still pay for live because it gives one of the best matchmaking experiences with halo.
In fact the matchmaking on xbox live is not even that great,even on Halo which was a game clean and neat,i was put many times in games were one dude had 20 kills and the rest of the team combined did not had what he had,that happen to me on PSN as well so both matchmaking are not that great,in a event where matchmaking is taking long it would probably pick the first players that it can find,happen to me allot on Reach.
Reach still has the level 50 ranking system, Halo doesn't use the skill matchmaking system fully because it ties a rank to your skill lowering the precision of the algorithms used. And even then Halo makes better matches then any other game, it will match parties with parties and soloers with solers, and match the teams up pretty well so if you have 1 good guy and 3 terrible guys, then the other team will have 1 good guy and 3 terrible guys.
tormentos
You can cite random problems for live as much as you want, the truth is they aren't as impactful as psn problems, which first party avoids by going with dedicated servers. That is a fact, that is the basis of live ever since they came out with it last gen, and since you didn't know it was integrated even last gen, you probably barely know what your talking about and it exposes your bias view on xbox and live
Log in to comment